Summing the votes of all parties that could be considered left (Green, S&D and The Left) you get 224 seats, which is about 31% of the European Union Parliament.
Still, even if this was the case, the programming styles are so different that there’s nothing to gain considering them as any more similar as any two other languages.
My understanding is that most implementations of new call malloc under the hood (this may or may not be outdated at this point, I haven't kept up with C++ implementation) and both of these systems introduce a layer of record keeping, so if you're in an extremely memory constrained environment, you may want to use malloc directly.
If you want your code to be noexcept, you need to call malloc and handle the case where it returns null as new can throw (this is UB in theory, but in practice I'm pretty sure everything just aborts) to strip out all the stack-unwinding code.
If you want to avoid the constructor call (for whatever reason).
We are talking about the question if C is a subset of C++.
`new` certainly isn't a part of C, so also not an element of the intersection of C and C++.
Idiomatic C code doesn't explicitly cast the return value of malloc
foo *bar = malloc(sizeof *bar);
C++ did AFAIK never (certainly not with C++98, the question is if it had been allowed sometime before the standardization, but I think it never did) allow this, so you always had to do
foo *bar = (foo *)malloc(sizeof *bar);
Therefore, C is not a subset of C++. But a (non-empty ;) intersection of C and C++ exists.
I never understood how Jung is more unscientific than Freud.
At least: I don’t see this choir of “but it’s antiscientific!!!” cries when Freud is discussed, but still there’s no evidence whatsoever for the tripartition of self which is at the very base of Freud’a theories.
The super-ego is no more scientific than synchronicities!
I think Freud's theories have all been pretty much considered 'surpassed' in academic psychology. I don't think they're considered valid anymore, outside of popular culture.
Well, even though there's a strong argument that around 50% of psychology studies fail to be reproduced when they try to, they are still studies which try to follow something as close as possible to the scientific method (some of the time, at least). Jung and Freud never did that. They just listened to a lot of patients and came up with explanations. Psychology today is still very far from the hard sciences, but it's more scientific than Freud ever was. And Jung.
It's about as good a "fact" as other "well established fact[s]" in most religions, i.e. not a fact at all, but merely a strong tradition/assertion from
authority.
I just wonder how something like canvas compares. If it lasts 1/2 as long but nothing had to be killed and skinned it's kind of hard to compare the two. But canvas comes from plants, which seems nice. Mushroom leather, if it did not compare directly to animal leather, could be used in decorative applications, while durable plant based or synthetic materials could be used when longevity is needed.
It's nice having durable products, and frustrating when things succumb to unnecessary failure. I think that given the externalities of producing it, though, it seems increasingly short-sighted to look at that metric in isolation.
What about durability per hectare of dead forest or kilo of CO2?
Though I'm quite fond of leather shoes, I'd gladly take a slightly less durable product that's many times less harmful to produce.
> less durable product that's many times less harmful to produce.
A big citation needed here… I am not sure boots made from locally-sourced leather are less sustainable than boots made from synthetic fibers and petroleum derivates some place in South-East Asia.
This is factually incorrect.
Summing the votes of all parties that could be considered left (Green, S&D and The Left) you get 224 seats, which is about 31% of the European Union Parliament.